THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250036. September 15, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JULITRE RAMOS @ "PAREKOY", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 15, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250036 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. JULITRE RAMOS @ "Parekoy," accused-appellant). — For this Court's resolution is an appeal 1 challenging the Court of Appeals Decision, 2 which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's Joint Judgment 3 finding accused-appellant Julitre Ramos (Ramos) guilty of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Two separate Informations were filed against Ramos charging him with violation of Sections 5 4 and 11 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Criminal Case No. 2015-23190
That on or about the 12th of October 2015 at around 11:10 o'clock in the evening, in the Municipality of Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, sell, deliver, and distribute one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," with a total weight of 0.01 gram, a dangerous drugs.
That accused was found positive for Methamphetamine, a Dangerous drugs under Chemistry Report No. DT-285-15.
Contrary to Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165.
Criminal Case No. 2015-23189
That on or about the 12th of October 2015 at around 11:10 o'clock (sic) in the evening, in the Municipality of Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, have in his possession and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," with a total weight of 0.02 gram, a dangerous drugs.
The accused was found positive for Methamphetamine, a Dangerous drugs under Chemistry Report No. DT-285-15.
Contrary to Sec. 5 (sic), Art. II, RA 9165. 6
On arraignment, Ramos pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. After pre-trial, the two cases were consolidated and tried jointly. 7
Seven witnesses testified for the prosecution: (1) Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (PCI Llena), Provincial Chief/Forensic Chemist of the Negros Oriental Crime Laboratory in Dumaguete City; 8 (2) Police Officer 2 Ryian Cabus (PO2 Cabus); (3) Police Officer 2 Catalino Entea, Jr. (PO2 Entea); (4) Kagawad Clint Charles Delmo (Kagawad Delmo); (5) Media Representative Edger Dayao (Dayao); (6) Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Agent Carlito Mascardo, Jr. (Agent Mascardo); and (7) Police Senior Inspector Enreque Asonio (PSI Asonio). 9
According to the prosecution, on October 12, 2015, a confidential informant (CI) reported to Police Officer 3 Herbert Partosa (PO3 Partosa), Chief Intelligence Police Non-Commissioned Officer of the Zamboanguita Police Station, that a certain Parekoy, later identified as Ramos, was engaged in selling illegal drugs at Barangay Mayabon and neighboring barangays. PO3 Partosa relayed this information to their Police Chief, PSI Asonio, who in turn instructed PO2 Cabus to verify the report. 10
Following PSI Asonio's instructions, PO2 Cabus and the CI proceeded to Sitio Bangculotan, Barangay Mayabon, Zamboanguita and conducted a brief casing and surveillance operation against Ramos. After confirming the information's veracity, PO2 Cabus returned to the police station and relayed to PSI Antonio the operation's outcome. It was then decided that an entrapment operation will be conducted against Ramos. 11
Later that night, PSI Asonio held a briefing regarding the buy-bust operation to be conducted against Ramos. The briefing was attended by PO2 Cabus, the designated poseur-buyer, PO2 Entea, the immediate back-up officer, and the designated perimeter security officers PO3 Partosa and Senior Police Officer 1 Glenn Flores. PO2 Cabus was given a P500.00 bill to be used as buy-bust money. He placed his initials "RC" on the bill. 12
The buy-bust team proceeded to Sitio Mag-abo at around 10:00 p.m. While in transit, PO2 Entea coordinated their buy-bust operation with the local PDEA through Agent Mascardo. The local PDEA then issued the coordination control number for the buy-bust operation. 13
When the team arrived at the designated area, they proceeded to the benefit dance where Ramos was. The CI identified Ramos as the person drinking at the Super 7 store beside the dance hall. Following an initial conversation between the CI and Ramos, the two approached PO2 Cabus who was then staying at a distance. PO2 Cabus informed Ramos that he wanted to buy shabu and asked him if he had "butang" or shabu with him. PO2 Cabus asked him how much it costs to which Ramos replied P500.00 per sachet. 14
After receiving the money, Ramos simultaneously handed to PO2 Cabus "one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance." Upon checking its contents, PO2 Cabus concluded that the sachet contained shabu. He then scratched his head to signal the sale's consummation. 15
Afterwards, PO2 Cabus introduced himself as a police officer and informed Ramos of his constitutional rights. PO2 Cabus asked Ramos if he understood these rights and Ramos nodded in response. By this time, PO2 Entea and the rest of the buy-bust team had advanced towards PO2 Cabus and assisted him in the arrest. 16 PO2 Entea then noticed something bulging from Ramos' back, which prompted him to do a body search on Ramos. The search yielded a folded black sando, two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, and the buy-bust money from Ramos' back pocket. PO2 Entea then informed Ramos that he was likewise arrested for possession of illegal drugs. He explained to Ramos his constitutional rights, which Ramos confirmed to have understood. The items confiscated by PO2 Entea were later turned over to PO2 Cabus. 17
Following Ramos' arrest, PO2 Cabus marked the sachet he bought from Ramos with "JR-BB 10-12-15." 18 On the other hand, he marked the sachets recovered by PO2 Entea with "JR-P1 10-12-15" and "JR-P2 10-12-15." 19
Still at the crime scene, PO2 Cabus inventoried all the items seized in the presence of Ramos, Kagawad Delmo, and Dayao. An Inventory/Receipt of Property Seized was likewise prepared which receipt was signed by PO2 Cabus, Kagawad Delmo, Dayao, PSI Asonio and PO2 Entea. Photos of the briefing and inventory were likewise taken by PO2 Entea. 20
After the marking and inventory, PO2 Cabus placed the three heat-sealed plastic sachets in a brown envelope. He then sealed the envelope and affixed his signature on it. 21
Subsequently, Ramos and the seized items were brought to the police station. PO2 Cabus placed the brown envelope inside his locker. Later, PO2 Cabus brought Ramos and the confiscated items to the crime laboratory for examination. The sealed brown envelope was received by Police Officer 2 Michael Salvador (PO2 Salvador). Upon confirming that the contents of the envelope tallied with those indicated in the report, PO2 Salvador re-sealed the brown envelope and affixed his signature on it. PO2 Salvador then turned over the brown envelope to PCI Llena. 22
PCI Llena examined the items which turned out positive for the presence of shabu. These findings were specified in Chemistry Report No. D-396-15. 23
The seized items and the chemistry report were later submitted by PCI Llena to the Regional Trial Court. 24
For his part, Ramos denied the charges against him. He claimed that on the day of the incident, he was at his cousin's house at Barangay Mag-abo to celebrate the fiesta. After dinner, he went to the Lucky 7 store to buy cigarettes. When he was about to leave the store, three men arrested him without informing him of the reason for his apprehension. Ramos identified them to be police officers Asonio, Trinidad, and Partosa. 25
Ramos was then brought to a makeshift hut where PO2 Entea was waiting with sachets of shabu and a P500.00 bill. He pleaded for them not to plant evidence as he was not engaged in any way with shabu and was working as a jeepney conductor. He further narrated that he was only informed of the charges against him when they were already at the police station. 26
On April 4, 2017, the Regional Trial Court convicted Ramos of the crimes charged, 27 thus:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 2015-23190, the accused JULITRE RAMOS @ PAREKOY is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale, delivery, and distribution of 0.01 gram of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "JR-BB 10-12-15" containing 0.01 gram of shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
2. In Criminal Case No. 2015-23189, the accused JULITRE RAMOS @ PAREKOY is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of 0.02 gram of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum term and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).
The two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "JR-P1 10-12-15" and "JR-P2 10-12-15" containing a total weight of 0.02 gram of shabu are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
In the service of sentence, the accused JULITRE RAMOS @ PAREKOY shall be credited with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, provided he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
SO ORDERED. 28 (Emphasis in the original)
In ruling this, it found that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the crimes charged. 29 The prosecution established that PO2 Cabus bought 0.01 gram of shabu from Ramos for P500.00. Ramos was further found in possession of two packets of shabu without any authority. 30
It gave credence to the prosecution's version of events and found it more credible compared to Ramos' unsubstantiated defenses of denial and frame-up. 31 It likewise noted that in addition to the presumption of regularity enjoyed by police officers, their narration of the incident was consistent and straightforward. 32
Finally, it decreed that the police officers complied with the law and that the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved. 33
Aggrieved, Ramos appealed to the Court of Appeals. 34
Ramos argued that the Regional Trial Court erred in rendering a judgment of conviction. He insisted that the items were not recovered from him and were planted evidence. He further contended that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. 35 He stressed that the markings placed on the seized items differed from those mentioned by PO2 Cabus in his affidavit. 36
For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General averred that Ramos' guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It contended that the elements of the crimes were sufficiently established through the prosecution witnesses' direct testimony. 37 It denied that there were inconsistencies in the items' marking and insisted that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody. 38
In its June 27, 2019 Decision, the Court of Appeals sustained Ramos' conviction. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Joint Judgment dated 4 April 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 30, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, in Criminal Cases No. 2015-23190 and No. 2015-23189, is AFFIRMED in all respects. 39 (Emphasis in the original)
The Court of Appeals accorded great weight on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It noted that the straightforward testimonies of these witnesses established all the elements necessary to find Ramos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. 40 Further, it found that the there was no break in the chain of custody of the items seized. 41 Finally, it decreed that in the absence of proof of bad faith or that the evidence had been tampered with, the presumptions that the seized items' integrity have been preserved and the police officers regularly performed their duty shall remain. 42
Dissatisfied with the decision, Ramos filed a Notice of Appeal. 43
In a January 13, 2020 Resolution, this Court noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and notified the parties that they may file their supplemental briefs. 44
Both the Office of the Solicitor General and accused-appellant manifested that they would no longer file Supplemental Briefs and that they are adopting their Briefs filed before the Court of Appeals.
For this Court's resolution is the issue of whether or not the guilt of accused-appellant Julitre Ramos was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The appeal is meritorious.
In cases involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the existence of the following elements: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." 45
Meanwhile, the elements that must be shown to sustain a conviction for illegal possession of drugs are: "(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug." 46
In addition to the elements of the crimes, the prosecution must also establish that the seized items' identity and integrity have been preserved. 47 This is to guarantee "that the illegal drugs offered in court are the very same items seized from the accused." 48
The requirement is satisfied by compliance with the chain of custody rule which is a method of authentication that removes unnecessary doubts involving the seized drugs' identity. 49 The rule is provided under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended and states:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. (Emphasis in the original)
People v. Arposeple50 clarified that there are four links in the chain of custody that must be established:
Jurisprudence dictates the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 51 (Citation omitted)
As regards the first link, law and jurisprudence require that it be conducted in the presence of two third-party witnesses: first, an elected public official; and second, a representative from either the National Prosecution Service or the media. The reason for this requirement is that the witnesses' presence is considered an insulating guarantee that protects the seized items from the evils of switching, planting, or contamination. 52
In People v. Tomawis, 53 this Court further expounded on the significance of these third-party witnesses. It was clarified that they must be present not just during marking, inventory, and photographing, but also during the actual arrest and seizure, thus:
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. And only if this is not practicable, the [Implementing Rules and Regulations] allows that the inventory and photographing could be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. By the same token, however, this also means that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension — a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. Simply put, the buy-bust team has enough time and opportunity to bring with them said witnesses.
xxx xxx xxx
The presence of the witnesses from the [Department of Justice], media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [Department of Justice] and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [Republic Act No.] 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of [Republic Act No.] 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 54 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
In this case, it is undisputed that the arrest and marking were conducted without the presence of the third-party witnesses. As the prosecution witnesses testified, Kagawad Delmo and Dayao only arrived when the confiscated items were being inventoried, thus:
While still at the crime scene, PO2 Cabus conducted an inventory of all the items bought, seized and confiscated during the buy-bust operation in the presence of the accused as well as the witnesses who were called and had arrived by then. PO2 Cabus also prepared an Inventory/Receipt of Property Seized which he signed as the seizing officer. Maluay Barangay Kagawad Clint Charles Delmo and media practitioner Edgar Dayao also signed the document as witnesses while PSI Asonio signed the same in his capacity as the team leader of the operation. 55 (Emphasis supplied)
The failure of the prosecution to secure the third-party witnesses' presence at the time of the arrest and marking casts doubt on whether the items confiscated from accused-appellant are the same items later presented in court. This Court's ruling in People v. Castillo56 is instructive:
Having third-party witnesses present only during the subsequent physical inventory and photographing renders the whole requirement of their presence futile. Securing third-party witnesses provides a layer of protection to the integrity of the items seized and forecloses any opportunity for the planting of dangerous drugs. Having their presence only at a very late stage reduces them to passive automatons, utilized merely to lend hollow legitimacy by belatedly affixing signatures on final inventory documents despite lacking authentic knowledge on the items confronting them. They are then reduced to rubberstamps, oblivious to how the dangers sought to be avoided by their presence may have already transpired. 57
The need to establish an unbroken chain of custody is further reinforced by the miniscule amount of illegal drugs involved. In People v. Holgado58 this Court explained:
Apart from the officers' glaring non-compliance with Section 21, two (2) circumstances are worth underscoring in this case. First, the shabu supposedly seized amounted to five (5) centigrams (0.05 gram). This quantity is so miniscule it amounts to only about 2.5% of the weight of a five-centavo coin (1.9 grams) or a one-centavo coin (2.0 grams). . . .
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Mallillin v. People, this Court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives." 59 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
While the law permits noncompliance with the requirements under Section 21, the prosecution must however provide a justifiable reason for their nonconformity. As further clarified in Castillo: 60
Prior to the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 10640, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 provided some flexibility during the initial custody of the substance seized. It included the proviso that reads: "non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]"
However, to successfully invoke this saving clause, the prosecution bears the burden of first acknowledging procedural lapses and specifically plead justifiable grounds for these lapses. It must also plead specific safety measures taken in view of the deviations made from the chain of custody requirements. Specifically on the absence of the required witnesses, it must be alleged and demonstrated that earnest efforts were undertaken to secure their attendance. 61 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
Here, the prosecution offered no justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses at the time of arrest, seizure, and marking. The prosecution's failure to provide a justifiable reason casts doubt on whether the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti have been safeguarded.
Finally, this Court reiterates that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot operate when procedural lapses attended the buy-bust operation. 62 In People v. Lim, 63 this Court explained:
Even the customary presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot suffice. People v. Kamad explained that the presumption of regularity applies only when officers have shown compliance with "the standard conduct of official duty required by law[.]" It is not a justification for dispensing with such compliance:
Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. 64 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
WHEREFORE, the June 27, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02572 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Julitre Ramos @ Parekoy is hereby ACQUITTED for the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for some other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court, within five days of receiving this Resolution, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the seized sachets of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."(Lopez J.,additional Member per S.O. No. 2834 dated July 15, 2021)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 25-27.
2. Id. at 5-24. The June 27, 2019 Decision in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02572 was penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga and concurred in by Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Emily R. Aliño-Geluz of the Special Eighteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu.
3. CA rollo, pp. 8-22. The April 4, 2017 Joint Judgment in Criminal Case Nos. 2015-23189 & 2015-23190 was penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr. of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court, Dumaguete City.
4. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 5 provides:
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
5. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 11 provides:
SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drugs in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or "ecstasy," paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
6. Rollo, pp. 6-7.
7. Id. at 7.
8. Id. at 11.
9. Id. at 7.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 8.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 19.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 10.
18. Id. at 9.
19. Id. at 10.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 11.
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Id. at 12.
26. Id.
27. CA rollo, p. 21.
28. Id.
29. Id. at 14-17.
30. Id.
31. Id. at 19-20.
32. Id.
33. Id. at 18-19.
34. Rollo, p. 5.
35. CA rollo, pp. 41-42.
36. Id. at 44.
37. Id. at 88-89.
38. Id. at 91.
39. Rollo, p. 24.
40. Id. at 16-19.
41. Id. at 19-22.
42. Id. at 23.
43. Id. at 25-27.
44. Id. at 33.
45. People v. Unisa, 674 Phil. 89, 108 (2011) [Per J. Perez, Second Division] citingPeople v. Manlangit, 654 Phil. 427 (2011) [Per J. Velasco, First Division].
46. People v. De la Trinidad, 742 Phil. 347, 357 (2014) [Per J. Perez, First Division].
47. People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 367 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
48. People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482, 491 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
49. People v. Jaafar y Tambuyong, 803 Phil. 582 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
50. People v. Arposeple y Sanchez, 821 Phil. 340 (2017) [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
51. Id. at 364.
52. People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882 (2018) citing People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
53. People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
54. Id. at 405-409.
55. Rollo, p. 10.
56. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
57. Id.
58. People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
59. Id. at 99.
60. People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
61. Id.
62. People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017 [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
63. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64400> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
64. Id.